Why Muslims are Shari’a averse?

Shari’a Law is based on Qura’an, Hadith, and Sunnah ( the practices and verdicts of Prophet Mohammad-PBUH); which all Muslims, regardless of sect and persuasion, are supposed to follow. Despite its canonical status in Islamic theology, there is not a single Muslim Dominated state where it is practiced in its letter and spirit. Even Saudi Arabia, which is often, erroneously, presumed a Shari’a Law state, is severely deficient in its application.

The result is that out of 54 Muslim dominated, so called Islamic states, there is not a single Islamic state practicing the Islamic Laws in its entirety. In Islamic theology, unlike Christian doctrine, there is no concept of separation of religion and State. Some countries, such as Pakistan, are deceptively running two parallel judicial systems, to pacify/suppress the criticism of the conservative segments of the societies. This segment, for political compulsions, is often, slanderously dubbed as extremists Salafis or Wahabis. These groups, in the face of negative connotations, are generally very small and lacking a cohesive strategy for the propagation of their religious doctrines.

There is an elaborate history behind this strange aversion to Shari’a by Muslims. The love-hate situation of this Islamic legal code has weathered several phases.

After the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), there was a blank or dark period of several hundred years. There was no work done on the collection or arrangement of the prophetic traditions (Ahadith). When it started: despite the best process employed: for sorting out the most reliable/authentic ahadith, the skepticism could not be obviated, especially among different sects of Islam, which had emerged in this period. Most of the religious division and sectarian problems stemmed from this period.

This lack of across the board acceptance of authentic Ahadith resulted in the weakening of the institution of shari’a. Ir-repairable damage was done by the division of Muslims in various sects; especially the Shia’a/Sunni; who opted to go with their own set of collection of Ahadith.

Another factor which halted the process of re-invigoration or the organic re-alignment of the religious norms (in the light of Hadith and Sunnah ) happened to be the suspension of Ijtihad (thoughtful intellectualization of the Islamic code of Law) until recently. (Though in Shi’a sect this process continued on a much smaller scale; since the Shi’a sect has always been very small in number)

A very potent propaganda against the Shari’a Law came from the Christendom. Upon deep analysis it transpires that the psychological trauma, suffered by the Christendom at the hands of Muslims, gave rise to a sense of religious and cultural inferiority; which culminated in this all out aggression against the Shari’a, the bedrock of Islamic system.

On the other hand, however, west came out of the slumber of dark-ages due to the Muslim’s splendor and enlightenment, which also challenged the core ethos of Christianity reducing them to fallacies. Muslim’s conquest of the Europe therefore, is being paid in kind.

The West, not only came up with various maligning, misleading propaganda techniques also, cunningly unsuspectingly dissuaded the Muslim elites from following the Shari’a Law.

Muslims failed, to counter these distortions from an intellectually mature standpoint, and resorted only to whining and complaining. They succumbed to these distortions due to their intellectual, educational, religious slumber, which had set in among the Muslims. Westerners, on the other hand, continued developing in educational, industrial and technological areas; which steeped Muslims further into the sense of inferiority complex. The reasons for this Muslim regressive mentality were many, few of which are elaborated below.

Morally bankrupt Muslims started taking refuge/pride in so-called modernized/westernized elitism. Devoid of piety and full of lust for worldly gains became their hallmark, It rendered them morally and spiritually weak, thus scared of harsh punishment meted out under Shari’a Law. The aversion to the Shari’a Law developed out of created fear.

Westernization, under the disguise of modernization, was adopted with regressive mentality and inferiority complex. This dark period, eras of dynastic courtships and blind loyalties; especially resulted in scuttling the organic progression of science, philosophy, ijtihad, religious and secular education. This un-naturally cultivated behavior, in contrast to natural egalitarianism, pushed the Muslims into inferiority complex and crisis of identity.

The emergence of Kamal Atta-Turk, Jamal Abdul Nasir, Mohammad Abdu and Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, on the Muslim Horizon, is the result of this regressive, inferiority complex ridden mentality. They immensely damaged the Muslim Nation. It created two classes of the followers; one is Modern, west educated, anti-Islamic in essence. other is: oppressed, deprived, economically left out but eager and willing to follow the Shari’a Law in letter and spirit. All the deprivations made him bold and religious enough to be a die-hard follower of Shari’a law, as the only way of salvation in this world and the hereafter. He made it his article of faith and hope.

The first one, maintains a social status in society, generally laced with secular education and well resourced, but often devoid of religious education. This so called Elite, Westernized/Modernized class exhibits avid reluctance, doubt, disregard, and in some instances outright rejection, of this Islamic Code of Law. This class looks down upon religious education and people despite being proud of calling themselves Muslim. A Crisis of Identity, double standard and hypocritical stance.

West has successfully created a parallel man-made code of justice, which is in stark contradiction and negation of Divine justice.

The distinction between the two codes is that the former is devoid of compassion. It seeks out the proof of fault to punish. The Divine justice, on the contrary, exhausts all possible means to give the benefit of the doubt to forgive and the punishment is rendered, as a last resort, in absolute situations when there is no shade of doubt left. For example, in the case of adultery, there is a mandatory requirement of four witnesses; which in normal circumstances is almost impossible to present. In the case of a killing, the litigation under Shari’a Law, is between the killer and the relatives of the victim. If the relatives of the victim forgive the killer there is no punishment awarded.

Under the Man-made Law, however even if the relatives of the victim forgives, the State will not absolve the killer of the crime and he/she would yet be punished. (That is probably why man-made Law is called Blind; since its application is mechanical instead of humane and compassionate)

The point here is that the propaganda of inhumane, harsh punishments rendered under the shari’a law is absolutely out of place and misleading. I will end this piece with one narrative. In the time of one of the four companions of Prophet Mohammad, someone was caught stealing and held liable for severance of one of his hands. The Punishment could not be carried out, as the ruler of the time (the companion of the Prophet) failed to provide the opportunities which would have prevented the compulsion of stealing. The ruler instead was held liable for the circumstances and the punishment was rescinded.